UFOs

[Lucifer Sam]

Hi Mike,

Have you ever seen footage released by NASA filmed from the space shuttle? There are clearly defined objects shooting up from the Earth's atmosphere then slowing down and changing direction before zooming off elsewhere. Very weird but makes you wonder. Its certainly no space debris or meteors/shooting stars etc. I think they're known as uncorrelated targets or something similar rather than ufo within the murky world of military intelligence. Anyway, NASA chiefs didn't realise no one had bothered to scrutinise the footage before releasing it and then had to play the whole thing down. I think they claimed it could be ice crystals on the lens or something but you can clearly see these things are in the distance and flying in and out of the Earth's atmosphere.

[eroticartist]

Hi Sa,
Thanks but I have not seen the footage but I understand that there are many such sightings recorded on film and video.
Mike.

[andy at handiwork]

I think you will find there is always a rational and credible explanation for such things that doesn't rely on the irrational and credulousness.

[Steve R]

andy at handiwork wrote:

> I think you will find there is always a rational and credible
> explanation for such things that doesn't rely on the irrational
> and credulousness.



Very true; very true indeed...

...and by far the most rational and credible explanation, given the available evidence, is that these things are extraterrestrial, or extradimensional, vehicles.

As to their precise origin or purpose - well, that is anybody's guess (unless, of course, some governments know the answers to those questions).

[andy at handiwork]

Steve R wrote:

> Very true; very true indeed...
>
> ...and by far the most rational and credible explanation, given
> the available evidence, is that these things are
> extraterrestrial, or extradimensional, vehicles.
>
> As to their precise origin or purpose - well, that is anybody's
> guess (unless, of course, some governments know the answers to
> those questions).
>
>


It will come as no surprise to you that that is precisely not what I meant.

[Steve R]

andy at handiwork wrote:

> It will come as no surprise to you that that is precisely not
> what I meant.


I surmised that. However, given the available evidence, the extraterrestrial/extradimensional hypothesis is actually the most rational one.

[The Last Word]

Steve R wrote:

> I surmised that. However, given the available evidence, the
> extraterrestrial/extradimensional hypothesis is actually the
> most rational one.

It could only appear "rational" if you firmly believed in extraterrestrials and extradimensions anyway.

My own take on this - and many other supposedly supernatural phenomena for that matter - is that science has yet to reach the stage where it can tell us what they actually are. In centuries past people used to believe that the sun and moon were Gods in the sky before science performed the big reveal.

I know it all sounds silly now, because people aren't so easily fooled these day. Or are they?

[Steve R]

The Last Word wrote:

> It could only appear "rational" if you firmly believed in
> extraterrestrials and extradimensions anyway.


That is, in fact, incorrect.

If one makes the effort to look up the evidence, one has no sensible alternative but to conclude that these things are either extraterrestrial (which would include, I suppose, the bizarre scenarios of them coming from the bottom of the sea or from within the earth even) or extradimensional (which includes the dimension of time), regardless of what preconceived notions one might have had.

I certainly never 'firmly believed' in anything; indeed I abhor the very word 'belief'.

[The Last Word]

Steve R wrote:

> If one makes the effort to look up the evidence, one has no
> sensible alternative but to conclude that these things are
> either extraterrestrial (which would include, I suppose, the
> bizarre scenarios of them coming from the bottom of the sea or
> from within the earth even) or extradimensional (which includes
> the dimension of time), regardless of what preconceived notions
> one might have had.

It would have to be pretty damn convincing evidence though, wouldn't it?

Well, where is it?

[Steve R]

The evidence is utterly overwhelming.

I would refer you to the first clause of my previous post: 'if one makes the effort to look up the evidence'.

Unless one makes that effort, then one will, inevitably, remain ignorant with regard to this subject.

Where to start?

Well, as good a starting point as any would be the book Above Top Secret by Timothy Good (although I have met Tim during my research into this matter, he also happens to be a professional colleague of mine, being a working violinist).

This is just a starting point remember.

One might also look up a thing called 'The Disclosure Project', started by Dr Steven Greer.

In just a few years' time (thanks to the internet, you won't have to spend the time I did on this) you should be fully appraised on the subject.